Protecting sperm rights would benefit society, and wouldn't really harm men. Understand -- a man's right to control his own body and life choices would not be infringed. Men could still have sex. They would merely be asked to accept a few tiny, ever-so-reasonable restrictions.
"America's Comeback Team" of Romney/Ryan will come back for women's choice, women's health and women's pay, and they will not stop until all of the progress made in the fight for women's equality over the past 50 years has been erased.
We can no longer pretend that Mitt Romney will focus on money and nothing else. As an occasional Republican myself, I wish that were true. It's not. Romney's appointment of Ryan as his running mate confirms the anti-choice agenda in big, bold, bright red colors.
For reasons that social scientists have yet to definitively unpuzzle, atheism and agnosticism are overwhelmingly staffed by men. My guess is that women see secularism more as having to do with atheism than with gender-based church-state issues.
They don't wear funny hats any more, but there still sure are a lot of Puritans in this country these days. It wouldn't surprise me if you told me some red state is going to force every woman who gets birth control to wear a scarlet letter.
Given that the number of unborn is currently unknown, it could reach the trillions -- or gazillions -- and should all those unborn give their grateful loyalty upon birth (should it occur) to the religious far right, the Republican Party could overwhelm elections through eternity.
Since the pro-lifers came up with this awesome personhood idea, I've been dating an ovum named Emily. She's a babe. Obviously, we can't have sex because that would form an embryo, which is a no-no, but we can do... um... everything else.
If you believe citizens should pay taxes, so should businesses. If citizens should obey the laws, so should corporations. If no person is above the law, then no business should be above the law either.
Why do we have trouble defining what a "person" is? The answer may lie in human evolutionary antiquity. It seems that the neuroscientific and evolutionary evidence for a hard-wired but increasingly dysfunctional idea of personhood is compelling.
It's great when we can disagree in a civilized way, but it's getting pretty hard to avoid the conclusion that the phrase "right-wing logic," as delivered by the GOP and mimicked by Mitt Romney, has become the mother of all oxymorons.
Mississippi's "Initiative 26," the "Personhood Amendment" that goes before the voters of the Magnolia State today, appears doomed under the Constitution -- unless the membership of the Supreme Court changes significantly by the time such a measure reached the Justices.